warmetalfandomcom-20200214-history
War Metal Wiki talk:Projects/Tyrant/Raids
Discuss the following changes to Tyrant Raids, in order to get the benefits of subpages such as backlinks, etc. (using Xeno Walker as an example): Slivicon 03:19, December 7, 2011 (UTC) *I knew the subpage idea when I saw some user-pages were auto-linked back to parent page, that's what inspired me to put mission-related stuff into subpages. Seeing that new Raids are coming soon, FOR introducing subpage structure to Raid pages. I think we can also use some subpaging on the following areas of the wiki: :*War Metal Mission Areas :*Tyrant Mission Areas :*War Metal Epic Bosses :Hakdo 04:25, December 7, 2011 (UTC) *Moving the raid talk from the main project talk page to here. Some of the items may be outdated. Slivicon 01:32, January 31, 2012 (UTC) RE: New Proposal I think I can agree. Some feedback: *Architecture: Agreed. *Articles: Let see, the Raid template, the Deck (/Enemy Deck, or "Raid Deck"?), analysis (/Enemy Analysis), strategy (/Strategy), sample decks (/Strategy/''depends on content of Strategy page, but most likely auto and manual''), honor payout and rewards (/Payout does both), organizing info (/Organization) Think that's all we need, rest of wiki can transclude these stuff via DPLs. *Templates: Actually we're using for the Raid decks. Other stuff... yeah, will need to be templatized. *Content: **Caption: Not a problem for me, those are talk material anyway. **NavBoxes: Not a problem for me, as long as the Raid parent page includes the list. **Strategies: Down to decks only, quite a harsh way to cut maintainance short, but oh well, new decks come when new cards and new skills are out. **Player Decks: Actually, now come to think of it, the 3 tiers ain't enough by now. More tiers will be needed, as divided according to this list: (cards of the rarest tier defines deck tier) ***Tier 1: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 1 to 4 Will consume lots of Bonds, the true hardcore Tyrant player ***Tier 2: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 5 to 8 Will consume Bonds, but only up to 275 per deck, still will need lots of cash, or luck from daily crates ***Tier 3: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 9 to 13 Will require very active playing; also use of reward cards from the raid itself is not allowed (so no more Toxic Cannon decks in Oluth, for example) ***Tier 4: Decks that use more HW cards than rewarded Can still use a limited selection of cards from Faction Level Reward (up to Faction lv5, up to 2000 Loyalty) and Player Level Reward (up to Player lv75) ***Tier 5: Decks that use more Standard and Enclave cards than rewarded Now if you can get >80% auto winrate with THiS SMALL CARD POOL, you DO know what you're doing. Hakdo 17:35, February 1, 2012 (UTC) Strategies and Tiers I don't mean to remove strategies completely, but rather restrict them to low maintenance content; factual, to the point, easily updated. Many strategies tend to go off into areas of opinion that could be argued and so I think a significant amount of strategy content could be stripped down and the bulk of the opinionated, high maintenance stuff be moved to talk, leaving behind the shorter, to-the-point facts that will remain fairly constant. For the tiers, it looks like you've done quite a bit of work to make it easier to follow. I think we need to investigate ways to create "smart" player deck templates for these "tier groups" or "tier sets" to make it easier for contributors to create decks within the bounds of said group. Also, perhaps look at ways to store the tiers in a template that could then be used by dpl or another method to create dynamic lists that people could reference for simulation, perhaps even copy and paste into the evaluate decks allowed card list (or whatever it's called) for testing against raids. Looks like we're off to a good start, though, some more work and documenting will be needed, perhaps after the new content is updated or something - I'm working OT this week so I haven't had near the time to be on the Wiki. Slivicon 01:31, February 2, 2012 (UTC) Update I've updated the table above as an example based on your feedback, Hakdo. I'd like to see the 150 WB cards simply not be allowed; they're too rare to be "wiki" material, I think, in that we're trying to provide information and help to the community at large. Some additional items: *If we mention tiers, we should link to where the tier is defined, so people know. There will likely also need to be card lists made to really spell it out for people, possibly new "smart" "tier-aware" "Player Deck" templates, too. *Cosmetic: Frameless raid art imagery might look nicer. *Strategy: I think we should put all strategy text into the strategy page and only have two subpages to strategy: Auto and Manual. This makes it consistent, people know what to expect and look for and also keeps any raid-specific strategy within one page, the strategy parent page. We can then defer improvements to the strategy text to War Metal Wiki:Projects/Article Improvement. *I'd like to keep the number of decks and variations from being limitless. Perhaps we could use a different approach for Raid decks and simply call them "Anti-Raid Name Tier X" (I think I noticed you may have been heading there already). Then, limit 10 variations to each tier, so that's 55 potential decks for Auto and another 55 for manual. To get a new deck in, beat one of the 11 win rates and bump the lowest off. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I'd just like to see a limit of some sort put in place to keep the maintenance down. *Organization and Payout seem small enough that I wonder do they require their own pages or could they not simply be sections within the main page and use templates, cutting down on number of pages and complexity? *Analysis: I don't think anyone has posted any feedback at all on the question of the move of analysis to talk pages, so I think we should move it back, deferring the content of said analyses to War Metal Wiki:Projects/Article Improvement. *Page Layout: There may be ways to improve readability. For example, the Raid Deck is really huge. I'd like to see some experimentation with collapsible sections for that "a la navbox", to cut down on the massive amount of scrolling. *I'd also like to add (I can't remember now as I type this if I added it to the proposal) the location of the raid in the header, with a link to the area page, adding some context and further integrating the raids into the rest of the wiki. Slivicon 00:00, February 6, 2012 (UTC) Your Proposal I like the changes you are proposing here Silvicon. It is something that should have been implemented early in the development of the wiki, but I had not anticipated such a vast expansion of the game content when I was alone in the editing process. Regarding the strategy, I definitely agree that any opinionated material should be moved to talk pages to keep the main articles as clean and unbiased as possible. Once a concensus as been made regarding your proposal, consider it approved. Refiner 01:17, February 6, 2012 (UTC) One Page Per Raid Versus Multiple Pages This project is quickly headed for approved status. Before going further, I'd like to get clarification and understanding documented here about the reasons for having multiple pages per raid as opposed to having simply one page per raid divided into sections. In the new mission area pages we are using one page for all the missions in that area, divided into sections, so I'm inclined to think we should consider one page per raid. I'd like to get feedback, though, as I'm sure the multiple pages per raid idea had a reason behind it. Slivicon 16:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC) The multipage method was used to split the walls of text up. Before the method was tested, every time I tried to edit the Raid pages, I actually need to weed through chunks of text before getting to where I wanted to edit. I also thought of catting the splitted pages on planning the method, as well as using a variety of numbers so that more people can understand how difficult a raid is to organize. That's why the Organizations also get to have their own pages. However, same pages being edited over and over again when EvalDecks was freshly out, as shown on the Recent Activity page, disturbed me so much that I decided to roll the plan out of testing phase and implementing the plan om all raid pages as quickly as possible. That way, I can see how demanding different sections are. From what I can tell, the proposal would put Characteristics and Organization into the same page. Kinda defeats the logic, since you need to be able to make a reliable deck before thinking of organizing (or joining, for that matter) raids. And you need to know thy enemy before being able to make decks. So I'd say: stick to Organization subpages. As for the payout and rewards... I'd accept putting payout tables above Organization, and reward cards below it. So it now looks like: *Enemy Deck (separate) *Enemy Characteristics (separate) *Strategy (separate) *Payout (into Organization, top of page) *Organization (separate) *Rewards (meld this table into the template, and meld the transclusion marks of other pages into the temp as well) Hakdo 17:57, February 11, 2012 (UTC) *I'm not sure why just editing sections wouldn't work to avoid scrolling through text (just click the section in the TOC then click edit beside the section)? Anyway, I'll probably sandbox test first, then get your thoughts (and anyone else interested who makes their presence known). I plan to test collapsible mode for the enemy deck, it might be useful for other parts of the page, maybe that would be a way to cut down on scrolling, too. Anyway, after that we should be ready for approval and deployment. Slivicon 22:35, February 11, 2012 (UTC) Final Draft? I have finished reading this draft, and I can finally say "aye" to the proposal in full. Hakdo 15:04, February 23, 2012 (UTC) explanation for appending Leonidas to restricted cards list With agreement from another Admin (Hakdo), I'm adding Leonidas to the restricted cards for raid player deck contributions, on the grounds that it is far too rare to appeal to the broad Wiki audience we are trying to reach. Since it is arguably similar in this regard to the existing restricted cards (those costing more than 25 WB), I'm appending the card without reverting the project to proposal status. If there is a valid argument against this, please post it here. Of course, after 7 days from now, it will have been auto-approved anyway. Slivicon 00:38, March 14, 2012 (UTC)